That contradicts my usual experience with every Wikipedia article I come across, which is a hundred or so "[citation needed]" markers.
Think of it this way: those [citation needed] markers are the first step in getting those sources linked. Their purpose is to encourage people who know something about the issue to provide references. Once those sources are linked, not only does the article have more intrinsic value (as the claims at least have some supporting documentation), but it has more value as a research tool to help people find those sources.
Every once in a while I've been reading a Wikipedia article on some subject, seen that marker, and said to myself, "Hey, I read that in XYZ!" I've then gone out, looked for the article, and replaced the citation marker with a footnote. If I hadn't seen the marker, I might not have thought of tracking down the half-remembered source.
Bad example because GoDaddy was essentially acting like the police, taking the 'criminal' down without affecting any nearby citizens.
No, it fits. I'm looking at it in terms of individual=page, city=site. The "criminal," in this case, was an archived mailing list post, not the whole site, not even a page deliberately placed on the site by the webmaster. From TFA:
Anyway, everyone has this latest password list now, and it was even posted (several times) to the thousands of members of the fulldisclosure mailing list more than a week ago. So it was archived by all the sites which archive full-disclosure, including SecLists.Org.
OK, a couple of archived mailing list posts. MySpace's actions were not to go after a couple of criminals in their homes, but to simply lock down the entire city.
Sounds like the best solution of them all! You get the problem solved without going through the two previous steps -- and the problem is solved much faster.
OK. Let's take a real-world analogy. You're trying to capture a criminal suspect who lives in a town of 250,000. You know his name. You know where he lives. You know he's at home. Do you:
A. Send police to his home and arrest him? B. Place the entire city under house arrest, saving you the trouble of sending that squad car?
do not apply to your business relationship with a registrar.
That's right, the Constitution doesn't actually say you have a right to freedom of speech, only that Congress can't make a law abridging it. Wait, why does this sound familiar?
Let's see... one page out of 250,000 on a site turns out to have content that could compromise security at another site. So MySpace contacts the registrar, and gets the entire site shut down?
That's like using a hand grenade to swat a fly.
The logical way to go about this is as follows:
Contact the site maintainer and convince them them to take the page down.
If that fails, contact the hosting provider, and convince them to take the page down. (Just the page, not the whole site.)
If that fails, and only then, contact the registrar and convince them to suspend the site.
Myspace should not have even contacted GoDaddy until they took the first two steps. And once GoDaddy was contacted, they should have done more investigation, which would have made it clear that they were looking at one page out of a quarter million... at which point they should have either told MySpace to contact the host, or done it themselves.
Even if, after all these steps, GoDaddy still decided to suspend the registration, they should have contacted him first: remove this page or we'll have to disable your site. Failing that, they should have told him why it was being suspended (beyond the vague reference to TOS abuse) and how he could resolve it.
Disabling the entire site with (apparently) minimal investigation is overreaction, plain and simple. That quote from Jones, where they refused to rule out taking down an entire news site to block access to one story -- or even one comment -- is telling.
IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera the supported browsers as of the release.
Thanks. I did eventually spot a reference to IE, Firefox, and Safari (no mention of Opera), but it's good to know that the four major rendering engines (Trident, Gecko, KHTML/WebKit, Presto) are supported.
I know married couples who both play World of Warcraft. For them, time on WoW *is* time with their SO.
While my wife and I don't share any online games, our computers are in the same room. If both of us are on the computer, we're still talking to each other.
So, are they specifically targeting IE and Firefox (at least we're finally past the days when they'd just target IE and say to hell with the rest of the world) or are they building it on commonly-available JS+DOM functions that will work in Opera and Safari as well?
I've been poking around the site, and haven't found anything yet.
if you aren't using your distribution's repositories then you aren't using that distribution.
According to TFA, CNR uses the distro's repository. There's a flowchart which shows CNR merging the standard Ubuntu repository with CNR's repository of Linspire and third-party software, then publishing the whole through CNR. If I'm reading he runes a-right, using CNR to install software that is also available straight from Ubuntu will actually get you the Ubuntu package.
To put this in perspective, a few years back, Red Hat users could download packages from Red Hat and install them manually, or use up2date, or install a third-party package manager like Red Carpet, yum, or apt. Those third-party programs would retrieve software from a repository which contained all the Red Hat RPMs and could connect to additional repositories that had more software.
This version of CNR looks like the equivalent of using yum or apt with freshrpms to supplement a RHL installation.
Re:boot time
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Windows gets a lot of flak for booting slowly, but in my experience, Windows XP is unbelievably fast compared to Windows 2000 or Fedora Core. Between work and home, I've got two Fedora 6 desktops, two Windows XP desktops, and a Mac OS X laptop that I work with regularly, plus a number of servers running Win2K and various Linux distros. The two XP boxes are ready to log in in 10-20 seconds. Win2k and Linux tend to take 1-2 minutes, regardless of hardware speed. I haven't measured the OSX box, but it's comparable to the XP system. Possibly a little slower, but nowhere near the Win2K and Linux systems.
This is, in irc terms, ban evading. It doesn't matter if the guy who banned you was a jerk, you're still ban evading.
Has Microsoft actually been banned from editing these articles? Even if you consider it to be Microsoft editing its own autobiography, I think it would be acceptable to remove blatant errors -- if "MS wants to enable death squads with their UUIDs" were in the article, I doubt anyone would object to Microsoft removing it.
If they actually cared about "corrections," they'd submit a public correction request to the wikipedia editors detailing what is wrong, why, and the proposed corrections, and subject them to review.
And yet, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and make changes yourself, rather than simply saying, "Someone should change this."
Just because they're Microsoft, they have to jump through extra hoops?
The next step should be that old links, ones that have survived many edits and time as well as links added or edited by known and trusted editors should omit the no-follow tag.
I like this idea. nofollow is more useful for the unmaintained or rarely-maintained site. If you're going to leave the site alone for a month and come back, you probably want to avoid rewarding the comment/wiki spammers who drop by in the meantime. On the other hand, once you verify the site, it's worth helping the site out a bit.
With blog comments, this can (usually) be done through manual moderation: give the links nofollow until the comment is approved. With something the size of Wikipedia, it depends entirely on how popular the target article is. Frequently-visited articles are more likely to have the spam cleared out, and less likely to benefit from nofollow, as it's unlikely that too many search engines are going to drop by in the 15 minutes between the linkspam being posted and the edit being reverted.
An advantage of the criteria you suggested is that it could, in theory, be done automatically. The metadata is already there: how long it's been since the link was added, who added it, how many edits have occurred with the link staying present. IIRC there's also a concept of reviewed/approved versions of an article, where someone has gone through and said, "Yes, this version is good," which could also be used to determine "good" links.
A MySpace-using Republican crackpot scientist named Steve Ballmer, who dabbles in law, comes from a hated European country, gets US government grants to work for the RIAA, and files a frivolous lawsuit claiming that Grand Theft Auto is to blame for all the spam he sent about how you can get at the firmware for his wireless ethernet device if you'll join his church.
How does an online chat service verify that someone is not lying about his age? Require a photo? Too easy to submit someone else's. Credit card = adult, no credit card = minor? Kids an grab their parents' cards. Adults can pretend they don't have one. Trivia questions about pup culture in the 1970s and today, to see which ones they get right? Have each subscriber walk into the local MySpace office to get verified in person? They can send someone else in and use their account.
How does an online chat services verify that someone is not a sexual predator? Do a background check on every one of those 100 million members? At best you can determine that someone is not a convicted sex offender, but even that assumes they're providing their real name.
This story is a great example of what happens when two values come into conflict. When MySpace comes up on Slashdot, the general tone is usually one of dismissal, disregard, and disgust. Most people at Slashdot -- at least, the most vocal ones -- look down on MySpace for technical, aesthetic, social or political reasons.
But frivolous lawsuits are even more reviled, particularly those which could produce a chilling effect on free speech. (Taken to an extreme, the idea that MySpace is at fault would lead to every online site with so much as a guestbook being liable for anything that happens as a result of people posting there.)
The result: Every comment I've seen on this thread (ok, there are only about 20 of them) has been in MySpace's favor. Not what you'd expect from Slashdot, until you factor in the bigger picture.
Just wondering... is it easier to win a lawsuit against a communications company than to win a criminal case against the actual predators? No, wait, according to TFA, at least one of the abusers has already been convicted.
So... where do the phone company, post office, manufacturers of digital cameras, and Dell fit into this?
Recently when SeaMonkey installed with my linux distro... I started the browser... clicked on the icon in my menu to open another one and... that crap was still there !
Unless you count IE+Outlook Express, or Safari+Mail. Everyone's moved toward solo apps. These days it's pretty much Seamonkey and Opera that are doing the Suite thing.
Coffee, yogurt and toast. Well, toast, or a muffin, or a scone. Something bread-based, anyway. And sometimes fruit juice.
I tend to go for a simple breakfast that I can eat at my desk when I get to work. I'm enough of a night owl that those extra 15 minutes of sleep in the morning can be critical.
If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years
That would be a neat trick, considering that as far as we can tell the universe is only on the order of 10 billion years old. Though 100 Quintillion years with high technology is probably long enough to figure out time travel, so I suppose this could still work.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by some blogs I've seen, I suspect you're right.
Think of it this way: those [citation needed] markers are the first step in getting those sources linked. Their purpose is to encourage people who know something about the issue to provide references. Once those sources are linked, not only does the article have more intrinsic value (as the claims at least have some supporting documentation), but it has more value as a research tool to help people find those sources.
Every once in a while I've been reading a Wikipedia article on some subject, seen that marker, and said to myself, "Hey, I read that in XYZ!" I've then gone out, looked for the article, and replaced the citation marker with a footnote. If I hadn't seen the marker, I might not have thought of tracking down the half-remembered source.
No, I interpreted it the same way you did: They reserved the right to take the same action again.
No, it fits. I'm looking at it in terms of individual=page, city=site. The "criminal," in this case, was an archived mailing list post, not the whole site, not even a page deliberately placed on the site by the webmaster. From TFA:
OK, a couple of archived mailing list posts. MySpace's actions were not to go after a couple of criminals in their homes, but to simply lock down the entire city.
OK. Let's take a real-world analogy. You're trying to capture a criminal suspect who lives in a town of 250,000. You know his name. You know where he lives. You know he's at home. Do you:
A. Send police to his home and arrest him?
B. Place the entire city under house arrest, saving you the trouble of sending that squad car?
That's right, the Constitution doesn't actually say you have a right to freedom of speech, only that Congress can't make a law abridging it. Wait, why does this sound familiar?
Let's see... one page out of 250,000 on a site turns out to have content that could compromise security at another site. So MySpace contacts the registrar, and gets the entire site shut down?
That's like using a hand grenade to swat a fly.
The logical way to go about this is as follows:
Myspace should not have even contacted GoDaddy until they took the first two steps. And once GoDaddy was contacted, they should have done more investigation, which would have made it clear that they were looking at one page out of a quarter million... at which point they should have either told MySpace to contact the host, or done it themselves.
Even if, after all these steps, GoDaddy still decided to suspend the registration, they should have contacted him first: remove this page or we'll have to disable your site. Failing that, they should have told him why it was being suspended (beyond the vague reference to TOS abuse) and how he could resolve it.
Disabling the entire site with (apparently) minimal investigation is overreaction, plain and simple. That quote from Jones, where they refused to rule out taking down an entire news site to block access to one story -- or even one comment -- is telling.
That would be XNU's Paradox?
Mine can, but she prefers to run a BSD variant.
Thanks. I did eventually spot a reference to IE, Firefox, and Safari (no mention of Opera), but it's good to know that the four major rendering engines (Trident, Gecko, KHTML/WebKit, Presto) are supported.
I know married couples who both play World of Warcraft. For them, time on WoW *is* time with their SO.
While my wife and I don't share any online games, our computers are in the same room. If both of us are on the computer, we're still talking to each other.
So, are they specifically targeting IE and Firefox (at least we're finally past the days when they'd just target IE and say to hell with the rest of the world) or are they building it on commonly-available JS+DOM functions that will work in Opera and Safari as well?
I've been poking around the site, and haven't found anything yet.
According to TFA, CNR uses the distro's repository. There's a flowchart which shows CNR merging the standard Ubuntu repository with CNR's repository of Linspire and third-party software, then publishing the whole through CNR. If I'm reading he runes a-right, using CNR to install software that is also available straight from Ubuntu will actually get you the Ubuntu package.
To put this in perspective, a few years back, Red Hat users could download packages from Red Hat and install them manually, or use up2date, or install a third-party package manager like Red Carpet, yum, or apt. Those third-party programs would retrieve software from a repository which contained all the Red Hat RPMs and could connect to additional repositories that had more software.
This version of CNR looks like the equivalent of using yum or apt with freshrpms to supplement a RHL installation.
Windows gets a lot of flak for booting slowly, but in my experience, Windows XP is unbelievably fast compared to Windows 2000 or Fedora Core. Between work and home, I've got two Fedora 6 desktops, two Windows XP desktops, and a Mac OS X laptop that I work with regularly, plus a number of servers running Win2K and various Linux distros. The two XP boxes are ready to log in in 10-20 seconds. Win2k and Linux tend to take 1-2 minutes, regardless of hardware speed. I haven't measured the OSX box, but it's comparable to the XP system. Possibly a little slower, but nowhere near the Win2K and Linux systems.
That's why time and who posted it are better criteria than just the number of edits.
As for being a "good" revision -- can *anyone* mark that? I was under the impression there were some limits on that ability.
Has Microsoft actually been banned from editing these articles? Even if you consider it to be Microsoft editing its own autobiography, I think it would be acceptable to remove blatant errors -- if "MS wants to enable death squads with their UUIDs" were in the article, I doubt anyone would object to Microsoft removing it.
And yet, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and make changes yourself, rather than simply saying, "Someone should change this."
Just because they're Microsoft, they have to jump through extra hoops?
I like this idea. nofollow is more useful for the unmaintained or rarely-maintained site. If you're going to leave the site alone for a month and come back, you probably want to avoid rewarding the comment/wiki spammers who drop by in the meantime. On the other hand, once you verify the site, it's worth helping the site out a bit.
With blog comments, this can (usually) be done through manual moderation: give the links nofollow until the comment is approved. With something the size of Wikipedia, it depends entirely on how popular the target article is. Frequently-visited articles are more likely to have the spam cleared out, and less likely to benefit from nofollow, as it's unlikely that too many search engines are going to drop by in the 15 minutes between the linkspam being posted and the edit being reverted.
An advantage of the criteria you suggested is that it could, in theory, be done automatically. The metadata is already there: how long it's been since the link was added, who added it, how many edits have occurred with the link staying present. IIRC there's also a concept of reviewed/approved versions of an article, where someone has gone through and said, "Yes, this version is good," which could also be used to determine "good" links.
A MySpace-using Republican crackpot scientist named Steve Ballmer, who dabbles in law, comes from a hated European country, gets US government grants to work for the RIAA, and files a frivolous lawsuit claiming that Grand Theft Auto is to blame for all the spam he sent about how you can get at the firmware for his wireless ethernet device if you'll join his church.
This story is a great example of what happens when two values come into conflict. When MySpace comes up on Slashdot, the general tone is usually one of dismissal, disregard, and disgust. Most people at Slashdot -- at least, the most vocal ones -- look down on MySpace for technical, aesthetic, social or political reasons.
But frivolous lawsuits are even more reviled, particularly those which could produce a chilling effect on free speech. (Taken to an extreme, the idea that MySpace is at fault would lead to every online site with so much as a guestbook being liable for anything that happens as a result of people posting there.)
The result: Every comment I've seen on this thread (ok, there are only about 20 of them) has been in MySpace's favor. Not what you'd expect from Slashdot, until you factor in the bigger picture.
Just wondering... is it easier to win a lawsuit against a communications company than to win a criminal case against the actual predators? No, wait, according to TFA, at least one of the abusers has already been convicted.
So... where do the phone company, post office, manufacturers of digital cameras, and Dell fit into this?
From TFA (specifically, the release notes):
If this is your only problem with SeaMonkey, upgrading to the new release fixes it.
Unless you count IE+Outlook Express, or Safari+Mail. Everyone's moved toward solo apps. These days it's pretty much Seamonkey and Opera that are doing the Suite thing.
Seamonkey: Web, email, newsgroups, HTML authoring, chat
Opera: Web, email, newsgroups, feeds, chat
Coffee, yogurt and toast. Well, toast, or a muffin, or a scone. Something bread-based, anyway. And sometimes fruit juice.
I tend to go for a simple breakfast that I can eat at my desk when I get to work. I'm enough of a night owl that those extra 15 minutes of sleep in the morning can be critical.
That would be a neat trick, considering that as far as we can tell the universe is only on the order of 10 billion years old. Though 100 Quintillion years with high technology is probably long enough to figure out time travel, so I suppose this could still work.